Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq

[HAL 9000 96]

Maybe because its their country, their backyard, and their region. Not ours. For starters. Second, its not all a country-wide phenomenon so perhaps you should clarify what it is you are trying to generalize indiscriminately.

Perhaps understanding a bit about Islamic religion and cultures you'd see that not all are out to blow themselves up when in a pickle.

Either way, its off to my liberal work.

Why do you think people like Osama attacked the US? In their eyes the liberal American culture is polluting the world. Do you seriously not realize that? Do you think a guy who's family is worth hundreds of millions is attacking us because he is jealous of our freedoms?

I myself did not understand liberal American / conservatives etc until moving here. But once I did it is clear who these guys actually hate. For example, You guys love gays while they despise and deny them. Yet you think you are going to sit down with people who are ideologically opposite to most liberal democrats. People who are clearly willing to die for their beliefs.

Okay... Liberal culture... is that the same thing as liberal political beliefs? Also, does that guy with the countless millions in family bank accounts... wasn't his family really tight buddies with conservative American politicians and multinational conglomerates that are not really doing anything in terms of spreading the evil liberal American culture the crazy fundamentalists so despise? Or maybe they are spreading it... in case your argument as usual is off the mark.

We are going to sit with people to discuss politics with a diplomatic approach. Its called negotiations for the improvement of all involved.

Not everyone in Iran is in lock-step with the hard-liners, even if their government is run by them.

In that respect our own history with that country dating back to the 50's explains some of the distrust, not just their current ideological outlook.

The one thing I will say that is that the US needs to stop meddling with other countries affairs. While I know they are usually doing this because they care, unfortunately this opens them up to be the scapegoat. Same thing happened to the UK for all of those years.

We cannot protect the southern border yet have military stationed across the globe protecting nations such as Japan, Italy and Germany. Three of the richest nations in the world.

Agreed. They can care for themselves. What I think you are missing is that if you impose your will somewhere you are not welcomed, you are bound to create enemies.

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation’s interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

[HAL 9000 96]

Now that I think of it leave the foreign policy to republicans or moderates who actually have respect overseas. What the hell would a left wing hippie child know about world affairs.

?

Aren't the Republicans in charge of diplomacy now? A lot good that has done for Middle East stability. I suspect you also need to understand the difference in relating current events on top of historical truths.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't think anyone has any illusions over Iran. But engaging with them on an issue in which they are clearly intrinsically involved would seem a better strategy than pretending that they don't exist.

I agree. I just don't see it happening. Liberals can hardly communicate with conservatives in their own country yet are telling us that they will reach out to the president of a ultra fanatical Muslim nation.

I don't see it happening either. It is unfortunate that we have to play they Realpolitik game here in order to push forward a popular political will as the current government is not heeding its constituency's call.

Perhaps we should move past the "you're either with me or you're against us" kind of incongruent logic and things would actually get done in a bipartisan fashion.

When you paint a black and white picture of Liberals and Conservatives, when in reality no such stark picture exists you can hardly be surprised when people take you to task.

In fact I'd suggest that partisanship in foreign policy is rather irrelevant.

It isn't a black or white picture of even generalizing. I just think a conservative is more likely to understand another conservative. An American liberal is probably the complete opposite to a Iranian conservative. Keep in mind I did say liberal and not democrat. There are still a lot of old school pre-70's hippie dems out there. The JFK types that is..

So a hawkish republican neocon is more likely to understand a hawkish iranian hardliner. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, I think this is what he is implying. And why we have nutjobs running two opposing countries: the US and Iran.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anyone has any illusions over Iran. But engaging with them on an issue in which they are clearly intrinsically involved would seem a better strategy than pretending that they don't exist.

I agree. I just don't see it happening. Liberals can hardly communicate with conservatives in their own country yet are telling us that they will reach out to the president of a ultra fanatical Muslim nation.

I don't see it happening either. It is unfortunate that we have to play they Realpolitik game here in order to push forward a popular political will as the current government is not heeding its constituency's call.

Perhaps we should move past the "you're either with me or you're against us" kind of incongruent logic and things would actually get done in a bipartisan fashion.

When you paint a black and white picture of Liberals and Conservatives, when in reality no such stark picture exists you can hardly be surprised when people take you to task.

In fact I'd suggest that partisanship in foreign policy is rather irrelevant.

It isn't a black or white picture of even generalizing. I just think a conservative is more likely to understand another conservative. An American liberal is probably the complete opposite to a Iranian conservative. Keep in mind I did say liberal and not democrat. There are still a lot of old school pre-70's hippie dems out there. The JFK types that is..

So a hawkish republican neocon is more likely to understand a hawkish iranian hardliner. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, I think this is what he is implying. And why we have nutjobs running two opposing countries: the US and Iran.

That seems to be the total antithesis of any idea of diplomatic relations. We of course don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran - but given the extent of their influence in Iraq (not least - that Iran actually brokered the deal with the Mehdi Army the other day) I can't see how it can be avoided.

As I say - a no-win situation is what we're facing and its a shame that the folks making the decisions didn't have the foresight to see that this was simply inevitable.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Number 6

[kaydee457 13]

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation’s interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

Excuse me, but they are an enemy of the people of the United States. Liberals don't get to make their own foreign policy, nor do they get to declare the validity or lack thereof of any foreign policy edicts approved by both the President, and the congress.

We broke ties with Iran in 1978 over the hostage crisis, a time when you were probably in diapers.

And in case you don't know, the "current" government represents all citizens of this country, period. That includes you, but you are welcome to leave if you believe otherwise.

One more thing. An elected President is under no obligation to follow the popular whims of the “constituency”. We elect leaders to lead, regardless of whether or not they take action that happens to be the Liberals cause de jour........

This self destructive "America turning on itself" phenomenon is nothing more than deja vu for those of us that come from the Viet era.

Liberals, such as yourself, were just as annoying back then!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation’s interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

Excuse me, but they are an enemy of the people of the United States. Liberals don't get to make their own foreign policy, nor do they get to declare the validity or lack thereof of any foreign policy edicts approved by both the President, and the congress.

We broke ties with Iran in 1978 over the hostage crisis, a time when you were probably in diapers.

And in case you don't know, the "current" government represents all citizens of this country, period. That includes you, but you are welcome to leave if you believe otherwise.

One more thing. An elected President is under no obligation to follow the popular whims of the “constituencyâ€. We elect leaders to lead, regardless of whether or not they take action that happens to be the Liberals cause de jour........

This self destructive "America turning on itself" phenomenon is nothing more than deja vu for those of us that come from the Viet era.

Liberals, such as yourself, were just as annoying back then!

On the bolded - True but it seems that people at large are increasingly of the opinion that they aren't well represented by the current govt. They don't seem keen to leave, rather they'd prefer than residents of the White House "get out". After all its easier for a handful of people to move, rather than millions

Still I don't see the harm in debate that you seem to. I do however see the harm in extremists telling others to shut up under the puerile pretense of "national security".

Edited April 9, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation’s interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

Excuse me, but they are an enemy of the people of the United States. Liberals don't get to make their own foreign policy, nor do they get to declare the validity or lack thereof of any foreign policy edicts approved by both the President, and the congress.

We broke ties with Iran in 1978 over the hostage crisis, a time when you were probably in diapers.

And in case you don't know, the "current" government represents all citizens of this country, period. That includes you, but you are welcome to leave if you believe otherwise.

One more thing. An elected President is under no obligation to follow the popular whims of the “constituency”. We elect leaders to lead, regardless of whether or not they take action that happens to be the Liberals cause de jour........

This self destructive "America turning on itself" phenomenon is nothing more than deja vu for those of us that come from the Viet era.

Liberals, such as yourself, were just as annoying back then!

Gee... now if that isn't case of misguided cherrypicking, I don't know what is. As you like to equate age with thought, perhaps your self-implied age-old wisdom can explain why it fails to understand basic American political concepts. Like democracy, for starters.

OK. 78. Hostages. Relations are cut.

Does that mean they have to be cut perpetually? NO. Does that make the government of Iran the enemy of the people of the USA? NO. Whether or not your retrograde mind will allow you to move past American political leanings is up to you, but you must certainly go back to school to learn and then comprehend that the United States is a Democracy.

Bush does not have mandate to be a dictator. Hence, by your confounded and irrational logic, it should be those that do not understand the American political system as it is designed, that should leave to a country where a democratically elected government does as he or she sees fit- in line or against the will of the people.

Too bad for your case, Bush will not be governing much longer. Then the electorate's mandate and continued political will can be respected once again.

If that is a liberal philosophy then perhaps anything else should be declared outright un-American.

[Dan J 277]

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation's interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

Excuse me, but they are an enemy of the people of the United States. Liberals don't get to make their own foreign policy, nor do they get to declare the validity or lack thereof of any foreign policy edicts approved by both the President, and the congress.

We broke ties with Iran in 1978 over the hostage crisis, a time when you were probably in diapers.

And in case you don't know, the "current" government represents all citizens of this country, period. That includes you, but you are welcome to leave if you believe otherwise.

One more thing. An elected President is under no obligation to follow the popular whims of the "constituency". We elect leaders to lead, regardless of whether or not they take action that happens to be the Liberals cause de jour........

This self destructive "America turning on itself" phenomenon is nothing more than deja vu for those of us that come from the Viet era.

Liberals, such as yourself, were just as annoying back then!

Bush was not elected with unanamious consent. Now his approval ratings are in the 20-30% range. Our current goverment does not represent the people. Of course he might represent you, but our country is not made up of people only like you. And its a good thing too, otherwise we would be just like Iran.

Interesting. Telling them we want to avoid armed conflict by being diplomatic is somehow contrary to diplomacy, is this what's wrong according to your logic? Gee how we progress as a nation...

It's not incumbent on a presidential candidate, or a president for that matter, to "tell" them anything other than what's been first vetted by the State Department. We have career people that have the diplomacy skills and credentials to engineer a diplomatic offer that's in this nation's interest.

Obama naiveté, and inexperience, circumvents that vested intuition and replaces it with a transparent, and needy offering that does nothing but embolden the enemy.

And yes, they are the enemy of this country!

They are an enemy of the current US government.

Yes, we also have career diplomats. Too bad the ones on the current acid trip are unfortunately carrying out a foreign policy that does not lead to a bright future for our country (consequence) and by sequence, our government- as will be apparent in the general election results IF foreign policy and the War become center pieces of the debate.

Excuse me, but they are an enemy of the people of the United States. Liberals don't get to make their own foreign policy, nor do they get to declare the validity or lack thereof of any foreign policy edicts approved by both the President, and the congress.

We broke ties with Iran in 1978 over the hostage crisis, a time when you were probably in diapers.

And in case you don't know, the "current" government represents all citizens of this country, period. That includes you, but you are welcome to leave if you believe otherwise.

One more thing. An elected President is under no obligation to follow the popular whims of the "constituency". We elect leaders to lead, regardless of whether or not they take action that happens to be the Liberals cause de jour........

This self destructive "America turning on itself" phenomenon is nothing more than deja vu for those of us that come from the Viet era.

Liberals, such as yourself, were just as annoying back then!

Gee... now if that isn't case of misguided cherrypicking, I don't know what is. As you like to equate age with thought, perhaps your self-implied age-old wisdom can explain why it fails to understand basic American political concepts. Like democracy, for starters.

OK. 78. Hostages. Relations are cut.

Does that mean they have to be cut perpetually? NO. Does that make the government of Iran the enemy of the people of the USA? NO. Whether or not your retrograde mind will allow you to move past American political leanings is up to you, but you must certainly go back to school to learn and then comprehend that the United States is a Democracy.

Bush does not have mandate to be a dictator. Hence, by your confounded and irrational logic, it should be those that do not understand the American political system as it is designed, that should leave to a country where a democratically elected government does as he or she sees fit- in line or against the will of the people.

Too bad for your case, Bush will not be governing much longer. Then the electorate's mandate and continued political will can be respected once again.

If that is a liberal philosophy then perhaps anything else should be declared outright un-American.

Lets not forget about the Republican darling who sold weapons to Iran.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It should also be pointed out (once again perhaps) that the '78 hostage crisis wasn't exactly the start of the problem.

[HAL 9000 96]

It should also be pointed out (once again perhaps) that the '78 hostage crisis wasn't exactly the start of the problem.

But that particular crisis sure came to an end with the advent of a Republican into office. Freaky!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Take your pick - no end of dodgy dealings

53 Coup

78 Hostage Crisis / 79 Revolution

84 - 86 Iran Contra arms deals.

[kaydee457 13]

You peeps sure have a distorted view of representation.....The fact is that they are our enemies, and that through the years they've been a threat to not only us, but all of their neighbors. Now let's neglect the current Nuke stand-off.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and a few others I can't remember see the Iranian's as a direct threat to their security and sovereignty and actively train their military to confront the Iranian's if need be. They have an alliance that practice war games with the supposed enemy to be Iran, and no other.

Mav, you clearly are in need of some perspective.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perspective also requires some sort of realisation that, in many respects, Iran and Iraq are inextricably linked; and pushing ahead with a long term occupation / peace-keeping strategy while they control the political strings is probably not going to produce the end result that we're looking for. If indeed that objective is feasible at all.

[HAL 9000 96]

You peeps sure have a distorted view of representation.....The fact is that they are our enemies, and that through the years they've been a threat to not only us, but all of their neighbors. Now let's neglect the current Nuke stand-off.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and a few others I can't remember see the Iranian's as a direct threat to their security and sovereignty and actively train their military to confront the Iranian's if need be. They have an alliance that practice war games with the supposed enemy to be Iran, and no other.

Mav, you clearly are in need of some perspective.

Now you're talking apples to the oranges in this thread, K.

So you want to look at it as a matter of regional security. Fine. Does that include our forays into their sovereignties as well or are we exempt from analysis because we are who we are?

Its called considering all points, not just the narrow-mindedness you want to project.

You can argue all you want about hating Iranian lunatics just as much as Iranian lunatics can argue all they want about hating Americans that care little about regional stability as long as our interests in the region are preserved. In fact, when Middle Eastern states begin to assert their sovereignty over foreign interests is when the situation gets really dicey given the particulars of the economic products and religious climate in that part of the world.

Their neighbors play the game and are ready to do so if need be, for example, if their sovereignty is violated, then they act. That is common sense and a part of any rational government's self-defense plan.

Perspective also requires some sort of realisation that, in many respects, Iran and Iraq are inextricably linked; and pushing ahead with a long term occupation / peace-keeping strategy while they control the political strings is probably not going to produce the end result that we're looking for. If indeed that objective is feasible at all.

Or if its what in the profiteers' best interests.